Did Key deliver Keenan’s Orewa II speech?
In Hager’s book, the National Party strategist and speech writer Peter Keenan wanted Brash’s January 2005 Orewa II speech to be about the environment (chapter 9). He thought a speech attacking welfare might not go down so well with women. He was right of course but Brash went ahead anyway with the beneficiary bashing speech.
Keenan’s alternative speech was one about the environment in order to counter the perception that National was corporate oriented and an old boys club. He was basing his thinking on research conducted by Sandy Burgman in Auckland that showed that women voters thought that green credentials were part of the New Zealand identity. And National’s anti-Kyoto stance alienated them.
So now 22 months later John Key has finally delivered the kind of speech Keenan wanted. Of course it was very short on substance and linking up with Australia for an emissions trading system when they have no binding greenhouse gas reduction targets is hardly credible, but nonetheless made the right noises in an attempt to reach women voters. No doubt we shall see more of this.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Like I’ve said in other posts (long ago), I think most right-wing parties get traction on the issues where the middle is most aligned with them. In other words, National would find it does best tackling “law and order” issues. They can simply say that NZ has a problem with drugs, alcohol, and violence, and offer solutions most people can live with. That would be their best strategy.
I do agree with Russel that greenwashing the National Party could help them shine up their image, but this is a vote they are trying merely to splinter, not win over completely. All they have to do is convince the middle that they don’t hate the environment, animals, etc. Some Nats have definitely come off that way in the past, and I for one would welcome them changing their tune.
National does open the door to cross-examination and close scrutiny to see if it lives up to any environmental promises (or aspirations) it makes. Greens should be prepared to hold their feet to the fire when appropriate.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
I can see ‘the environment’ as being a catch-cry for both major parties in the run-up to the next election, but I will be very surprised if either party manages to grind out any meaningful policy. The bluster sounds great to the vast majority of Kiwis who feel passionate about the environment, but neither party will have the bollocks to actually lay any concrete policy that would effect real change.
That is why the only change to the Greens core vote will be an upswing, I reckon. The Nats and the Labourites make it an issue, but can’t follow through with credible policy. The Greens have had it all along.
DenMT
November 30th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
i see also that peter dunne is now calling to be included in multi-party talks about ways to deal with climate change:
how ironic given that his party campaigned on pulling out of kyoto unless australia and the u.s. signed up to it:
and given that following the election he refused to be in a government that would require him to have multi-party talks with the greens.
and get this - he is now outraged that by not including him in any such talks, labour is playing party politics with the future of the planet.
in just over a year, what dunne regarded as “extremism” is now obviously common sense. these kind of breathless about-faces, though frustrating, can really only be encouraging for the greens and the planet. but what do your reckon, russel, do we give him an olive branch or the cold shoulder in 2008?
hamish
November 30th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Ham
While I agree with Dunne about pulling out of Kyoto I would not get to bothered about his latest stunt.
I fully expect his party to disappear after the next election and i sure as hell hope he takes Winston with him.
Actually while I am on the subject of Winston, why is it that I NEVER read anything on here about his blatant racist attacks?….or is it OK as long as he is not a Nat?
November 30th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
IMHO- Peter gets a pass for his petulance if he apologizes… but I don’t feel that strongly about it. This is a political position, better considered and decided by the folks who have to work with him (or not).
Winston - and his followers - my impression is that we’ve sort of given up on them. He gets rubbished pretty well here when he is acting up, but he has been out of town so long we hardly have anything to complain about. Which may be a clever stratagem on the part of Helen Clark. Out of sight and all that….
respectfully
BJ
November 30th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
given that key attended the british tory party conference a few months back its of absolutely no surprise that there’s been a “greening of the key“. cameron and key are of similar ilk.
russel, the assumption that an australian emissions trading market would not incorporate a cap is a little cheeky. a market can’t function without scarcity - hence a cap. of course they’ll have a cap. they’re not daft. surely you of all people can appreciate that.
the greens role following the next election may well involve making sure that the oz. trading system national signs us into has rigour.
we’ve got to accept that the environment and climate change are now “mainstream” issues. and not a minute too soon. again, the green role is one of demanding the substance that russel has mentioned.
at least the major parties are now singing from a green song-sheet.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Yep Mikey I agree the cap is essential to make the market work. But of course that’s what Kyoto was all about and that’s what Bush/Howard/Brash rejected. And now too it seems Key is rejecting it, though it’s a little unclear. We need a global agreement with a global cap which Kyoto is the first step of. Why ditch Kyoto for a trans-tasman possible market?
November 30th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
Hi Big Bruv honey. I could’n agree more. I mean here we are talking about climate change an th’environment and our wonderful deep sea bluegreen friends in national and I just can’t stop asking myself that exact same question:
“Actually while I am on the subject of Winston, why is it that I NEVER read anything on here about his blatant racist attacks?….or is it OK as long as he is not a Nat?”
So damn peculiar these greenies - surely they can see the natural linkage an’ all. Personally I think its perfectly OK that Winston is not a Nat, of course you do remember he did use’ta be one but he went awry….
November 30th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
There’s some very interesting re-positioning going on with the Key-English pairing trying to pull the “new broom” trick; but Hagar’s book shows them very clearly entrenched in the whole fundraising effort beforethe 2005 election.
I smell damage control, and scapegoating.
Brash was politically naive to get involved with any funding from the fundies, Maxim Institute being almost as bad as the Exclusive Bretheren. But it appears that neither Key nor English were unwitting participants, and this new line-up is a bit of a shuffle, not a paradigm shift.
Oh, and the photo-op of a tearful Brash, mid-speech in New Plymouth? Better check the speech notes for “look remorseful”…. I don’t buy that one minute!
Nicky, if you’re watching: Great Book!
I don’t see the Nat’s committment to “green philosophy” as being more than superficial, given the nature of their big-business funding; a “bluegreenwash”?
The policy launch was high on rhetoric about beautiful NZ, and a bit thin on practical suggestions of how their supporters were actually going to effect those changes. Especially for the major polluters of the Canterbury aquafer, Fonterra shareholders on dairy farms.
But then, I might be biased…
December 1st, 2006 at 12:25 am
bruv, I suspect you have never read anything about Winston’s racist comments here on frogblog because you haven’t gone far enough back in the archives:
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/07/28/winston-strikes-again-a nd-not-in-a-good-way/
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/07/29/winstons-motives/
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/08/02/tadpole-toon-7/
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/08/03/tolerance/
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/08/05/unfunny/
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/08/10/tadpole-toon-9/
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/08/26/winston-peters-re-write s-history/
as for why there hasn’t been anything recently, well there are only so many hours in the day, eh?
December 1st, 2006 at 11:59 am
So Key has attempted to “inoculate” (to coin the phrase Hager’s book reveals was used in the Nat’s internal correspondence for dealing with issues on which they perceived themselves electorally vulnerable) 4 issues in the first 3 days of his watch: climate change, nuke ships, welfare, and the Treaty.
Hager’s book makes it clear that Brash’s Orewa I and II speeches were really just distractions to gain red-neck electoral support and divert attention from the real National agenda - furthering the neo-liberal revolution commenced by Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson.
Interestingly, especially given that he’s the immediate past finance spokesperson, there has been no rebuttal from Key of the hard right neo-liberal economic agenda pushed by Brash - in fact, no mention of economic policy at all - in his first speeches. This is exactly the same tactic that Matthew Hooton advised Brash to take on his assuming the leadership “Eliminate perceptions Don is only about economics, Eliminate perceptions that Don is hard right, Surprise urban liberals and make them consider us”.
And, yes, Peter Keenan is still in the wings - albeit as a “consultant” to Key, rather than a staffer. So Key’s climate change speech could very well have been the one Keenan wanted Brash to deliver at Orewa II (”Surprise urban liberals and make them consider us”).
And where’s that loathsome Murray McCully? The day he follows Brash down the plank and out of Parliament is the day I might in a more scatterbrained moment be persuaded the Nats really have had a change of direction, rather than just changing the window dressing that hides the hard right agenda.
Get rid of a few of the hard right policies like privatisation of ACC, market rents for state houses and discouraging collective employment bargaining, and it really could look like Helen-lite.
But can you trust a man who not so long ago told Parliament “The impact of the Kyoto protocol, even if one believes in global warming, and I am somewhat suspicious of it, is that we will see billions and billions of dollars poured into fixing something that we are not even sure is a problem” and now says “If climate change is real, and I believe it is, and we don’t find out early enough, that would have devastating implications for our economy.”
December 1st, 2006 at 12:42 pm
The notion of innoculation is one that has been used a long time in politics. I remember the term from my undergraduate political science classes in the early 1990s in the States.
Innoculation is all about taking the steam out of the opponenent’s arguments that were most effective last time. Key is not just answering questions for the media, he is quickly laying a groundwork for his 2008 campaign. Do Nats really care so much about nuclear ships coming to NZ that they will risk losing votes over it? No. And with Bush’s diminished political capital after the recent U.S. election, he’s going to feel a lot less pressure from the U.S. to change this policy.
Key has been thinking about this moment for a long time, and it’s why he has gotten so busy this week with all the new policy directions. But once the innoculation is done, we will see a carefully planned set of popular policies designed to maximize National’s votes in 2 years. Here’s my best guess of what they will spend most of their time talking about:
1. Tax cuts. Like George Bush in 2000, National can come out with a massive tax cut policy that they will claim puts more money back into middle and upper-middle income taxpayers’ pockets. They will avoid the class warfare attacks that Labour was so successful using by giving the cuts to people making less than $100,000. To compensate for not giving income tax cuts to the $100,000+ club, they will call for business tax cuts to encourage “investment and jobs” which will effectively mean a tax cut for those who have the money to invest (those making above $100,000–surprise!).
2. Law and order. I believe there is a strong majority in New Zealand who perceive there to be a drugs, alcohol, and violence problem. National is strong in the “punish the offender” area, like most right-wing parties are, and will spend a lot of time talking about the problems. The daily news will provide many opportunities for them to keep coming back to this strong issue for them, and they will do so. They may also push for a “victim’s bill of rights” to make sure victims of crime are empowered by the NZ justice system, not victimised further by it.
3. Innovation and growth, strong trade. This one could be very useful for Key as a relatively young and entrepreneurial leader of the Nats. Key can push for incentives for new industries to spring up with the improving telecommunications infrastructure. The Nats are seen as the business party, and if he makes it a priority for the right to open up new markets for Kiwi goods, this will fit right in with the pro-growth notion of the party that people already have.
Key can possibly co-opt the Greens by promoting such ideas as telecommuting that have proven so successful in the States and Europe.
Key could make mistakes and get really aggressive on the environment, bashing Maori, etc etc, but I think he is much smarter than that. He will abandon the “ugly side” of what the party has done in the past, will have far fewer gaffes than Brash did, and give Labour a real run for it in 2008.
I also have ideas for how Labour and the Greens could combat this plan I think the Nats will follow, but this message has gone on far too long.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:30 pm
I should probably add that I think Key will innoculate the beneficiary issue by saying their tax cut plan and retention of Labour’s 0% student loans policy should help people be lifted out of poverty through work, not just stagnant benefits. Republicans and conservative Democrats in the U.S. called this welfare-to-work restructuring, and even Bill Clinton said that he would help enact “an end to welfare as we know it” and “the age of big government is over.”
Establishing a direct loan program like what NZ has and increasing government grants to education were all part of this “building the ladder of opportunity” exercise.
National can’t just bash people on a benefit, they need to respect their needs. One big life need is a source of income. If Nats can transform themselves into a “hand up” party from a “bash the poor” party, I think New Zealanders will embrace them. There are lots of places where Nats could steal issues from Labour and the Greens and improve on them. For instance, Nats could announce that they would cover up to 40 hours per week of childcare for daycare instead of Labour’s mere 20, MANY families would support Nats on this. If the Nats can show empirically that business tax cuts will provide more jobs, New Zealanders will support this.
My point is just that politics is a wrestling match to see who can claim to be helping voters, families, and workers the most. If a policy is popular and a good choice for New Zealand, why not steal it from the other side and improve on it?
Just as in wrestling: if the other person is using a move particularly well against you, you should learn and practice it yourself.
Left/right divisions with the same old tired bromides does not move us forward. Exploratory and playful thinking does.
December 2nd, 2006 at 7:45 pm
two good comments andrew..
(and i’d be happy to read/hear your ’solutions’….don’t be shy..)
and den…don’t you think it’s a tad risky to just rely on the ‘they won’t come up with any decent green policy’…line..?
y’know..key is not stupid…and the green wing in labour is coming into it’s own…
so..a better guess/assumption would be that both of the old parties will be fronting with well-thoughtout green policies..
that’d be the safer assumption..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 4th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Ok, I’ll bite.
1. I think the Green Party should develop a whole range of tax cuts for different purposes. The Party should push for lower tax rates for the 19.8% and 33% brackets. Perhaps they could become 15% and 30%? The idea of a tax-free income on the first $5,000, something the Greens pushed for during the last election, should be expanded to $10,000. Essentially, if you are making the minimum wage and working, you should not be paying much in taxes at all. GST disproportionately affects the poor, so they should be getting a break on their income taxes to make up for it.
2. Law and Order. Greens don’t have to give up on the goal of reformation, but it would be good to push for tougher sentences and truth in sentencing for violent crimes. Also, Greens should push for more money for independent, university-based research on the effects of marijuana. The police should also be empowered to obtain pot undercover and then provide this to researchers to see what levels of lacing with other things (LSD, P) occurs in the drug “on the street.” Greens, in short, should make their law enforcement position very proactive and in favour of protecting the public from bad actors. Give voters something to hang their hat on so they can support the Greens.
3. Innovation and growth. The Green leadership should formulate a pro-growth policy that has Green values. This can include efficiencies and savings through telecommuting and better telecom infrastructure, increased but better managed ecotourism, and other initiatives. Greens can promote lower interest rates to encourage growth, and can push for lower business investment taxes, especially for green industries. Voters want to see that Greens and the left have a plan for employing people, not just the right.
December 4th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
i am ok with your one and three..
but number two is a bit of a worry..
um..!..sorry to disabuse that urban myth for you….but pot is not laced with meth and/or acid…
(like the corby case)…it just dosen’t make economic sense..eh..?
but as for free samples of meth being given to teenagers buying pot..?
that is true..
and is reason number 53 the distribution of pot should be taken out of the control of crims/gangs…
but hey..!…that’s common sense..eh..?…but there isn’t alot of that around that vexed subject…eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)